Re: ocaml-deb documentation packaging
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:45:26PM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> >
> > by policy, manpage have to come with each executable anyway, ...
> >
>
> > Well, /usr/share is all arch independent stuff, and as such, it can be (NFS)
> > shared between lot of boxes ...
> >
> > not sure how dpkg & co handle this though.
> Very interesting..., I have some trouble (in my mind) about such points
> because on one hand you have a beautiful and rather theoretical statement
> (I can do that, fine) and on the other hand you have a practical and
> unsolved question (but what may happend If I *really* do that) ...
Well, i have no time and interest to search the documentation about this in
the place where you could find it yourself ...
> Anyway, I don't think that it solves the problem of serving documentation
> since this will introduce a(n additional and reverse) dependency (mouting
> point) between a "user class" machine and the server (there is more
> documentation on user's machines...)
Sur,e i didn't say it was the perfect solution, but that this is the reason of
the comment about /usr/share.
> PS : I've heard people speaking about sharing/mounting a single /usr (!!)
> across similar boxes ...
Standard unix practice in the old days, when disks where expensive, and you
even got diskless boxes.
>
> PS2 : in fact there is little documentation about managing several Debian
> boxes...
I think this discution got spoken about some time ago on the list, more than
once, mostly about installation stuff and such.
There are people who want to do mass installs and other suhc things, i guess
there is even a debian project about this, don't know for sure though.
> PS3 : suppose that I want to add the bibtex2html documentationon our file
> server, here is what I have to do : :-(((((
Sure, ...
if you are not happy with it, just fill a wishlist bug against bibtex2html,
and speak it out with the package maintainer.
That said, i guess he will easily agree with you.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: